Insisting that a serving Prime Minister should not knowingly mislead Parliament, and that if he has he must resign, is *defending* our democracy, not “undermining” or “belittling” it.
We do not elect our governments or MPs with carte blanche to do anything they like. That would be episodic autocracy. We elect them to operate within the rules of our constitution. Which is representative democracy.
And one of the few hard-edged conventions with hard-edged consequences in our constitutional arrangements is that if Ministers knowingly mislead Parliament, they resign.
That convention plays as important a part in the accountability of government to Parliament as do rules that lawyers and witnesses must not mislead the court in our justice system. Without it, accountability collapses.
You really would think that a party of the centre right that was in possession of its marbles would not need to be reminded of that point.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Interesting analysis by @lewis_goodall last night on Newsnight on whether Johnson has lied to Parliament on Partygate.
One issue is whether he has lied in relation to what he knew/was told about the 20 May BYOB event before it happened. That will depend on evidence (written/oral).
Another issue - which Lewis correctly took separately - is whether this statement on 1.1.21 was a lie.
Which is why it doesn’t really matter (see the #r4today discussion with Heappy) whether Johnson knew what the event was before he arrived. He was there - on his own admission - for 25 minutes.
What we are being asked to believe is that Johnson could have been at a “work event” or party, with booze and people taking advantage of the lovely weather together, without realising that it breached rules and guidance (see @AdamWagner1’s explanation of what they were).
If anyone does manage to believe that, I’m impressed. Perhaps it’s something they practise at training sessions for Conservative candidates.
The central pillar of our system of parliamentary democracy is ministers’ accountability to Parliament. That pillar is built on sand if ministers - especially the PM - lie to Parliament without having to resign.
The interesting question is what happens politically if she says that the PM's behaviour raises questions outside the scope of her inquiry and recommends/suggests that he refers himself to Lord Geidt. As I read it, that recommendation/suggestion would be in scope.
(And in any event, the facts may well make it obvious that there are serious questions under the Code - as matters stand, it’s hard to see how there aren’t.)
This is an excellent piece on the recent UK case-law on the extent to which UK courts should, under the HRA, regard themselves as bound by Strasbourg ECtHR case law. It is relevant to a key aspect of the current government’s consultation on HRA reform.
There are some problems here. First, if you say that the U.K. courts applying the HRA should never go beyond the ECtHR, does that mean you can’t find an HRA breach just because the ECtHR has not ruled on that particular issue, even if it has found a breach in analogous case?
As @BarristerSecret has already dispatched this article in @spectator by @SBarrettBar, there is perhaps no need to plunge a further dagger into its corpse. But there is a bit more to be said.